toast wrote:
Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to freeze a waterfall or shooting in extremely low lights conditions where you may need a few extra stops; why would you need to use a tripod for landscape shots?
I have a full frame camera (Canon 5D Mklll). I can set shutter speed (1/1000) where I'm not going to get any discernible shake and I can turn up the ISO if I need to lighten the exposure.
Even at 2000 to 3000 ISO you are not going to get any noticeable grain or noise. Full Frame ISO performance is amazing!
In nearly all outdoor conditions where they is adequate light (exceptions would be early morning or late evening) I can use the combination of shutter, aperture and ISO to get the exposure I want. It will be sharp/crisp and no grain or noise.
In most conditions I don't see the need for a tripod for landscape shots. Enlighten me I'm open minded :)
Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to free... (
show quote)
The answer is yes. The reason is it gives me the opportunity to see what you captured and move the tripod to capture what tou want to capture. I am not a handhold click and run guy unless I can't use a tripod or monopod.
Each to their own. Personally I find tripods and good heads essential tools for landscapes. I like to get to my preferred spot prior to sunrise, set up and then wait for the light that comes. I may reorient the tripod a few feet as the light changes. I tend to scout my spot in broad daylight and then return pre dawn. But that’s me. Different strokes.
A tripod will definitely yield better image stability than simply relying on a fast shutter speed and VR/IS.
Generally, I reserve my tripod for indoor photography and either hand-held or a monopod for outdoors. I just don't like carrying a tripod around when I'm out hiking. And I don't like setting a tripod outdoors either, especially on slopes or uneven terrain, which is often the case when capturing landscapes. It makes me feel more restricted when choosing a shooting position. Long ago, tripods were much more important - back when a camera's maximum shutter speed was 1/200 or 1/300 second and there was no such thing as built-in vibration reduction. Nowadays, not so much.
Technology marches on. Cameras now have image stabilization in both the lens and body that can join to reduce tripod need by several stops. Pano software is smart enough that stiching of handheld exposures are just as good as tripod mounted.
I still have a tripod but it is a shadow of my old gear. It is feather light, tiny and fits in my small camera bag.
Tripod never hurts the results. At least for landscapes. (Not so great is spontaneity is important). Some landscape locations are precarious or require long slogs so a tripod may be the last straw.
Once I took a tripod along on a six day backpack. Emphasis on ONCE!!!
Tripod never hurts the results. At least for landscapes. (Not so great is spontaneity is important). Some landscape locations are precarious or require long slogs so a tripod may be the last straw.
Once I took a tripod along on a six day backpack. Emphasis on ONCE!!!
I use my tripod probably 95% of the time. My shooting style pretty much requires it. When I come across a scene that interests me, I start hand held on auto, moving around taking a few quick shots from various angles and heights. I keep chimping them until I see something on my camera’s screen that I want to pursue further. At that point I set up my tripod and start perfecting the composition. I may spend a number of minutes getting the composition the way I want it (zooming in/out, adjusting height, possibly shifting left or right, etc.). At that point I might either take the shot or settle in the wait for conditions to change (sunrise/sunset, less/more wind, Change in sun or cloud position, etc.). I prefer to shoot at base ISO and with small apertures as much as possible. I usually bracket for possible HDR, and for a bit of insurance for my exposure.
The way I compose makes going handheld pretty ineffective. I find my tripod to be indispensable. While camera technical abilities may make it possible to get acceptable exposures and in focus shots handheld, getting the best composition may require the time and attention to detail best achieved when using a tripod.
Tripods contribute to a disciplined approach.....
Longshadow wrote:
A tripod will definitely yield better image stability than simply relying on a fast shutter speed and VR/IS.
Especially with high MP ...
toast wrote:
Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to freeze a waterfall or shooting in extremely low lights conditions where you may need a few extra stops; why would you need to use a tripod for landscape shots?
I have a full frame camera (Canon 5D Mklll). I can set shutter speed (1/1000) where I'm not going to get any discernible shake and I can turn up the ISO if I need to lighten the exposure.
Even at 2000 to 3000 ISO you are not going to get any noticeable grain or noise. Full Frame ISO performance is amazing!
In nearly all outdoor conditions where they is adequate light (exceptions would be early morning or late evening) I can use the combination of shutter, aperture and ISO to get the exposure I want. It will be sharp/crisp and no grain or noise.
In most conditions I don't see the need for a tripod for landscape shots. Enlighten me I'm open minded :)
Unless you're trying to do a long exposure to free... (
show quote)
The most important aspect in landscape shots besides composition is the intended DOF, which sometimes alone, dictates a use of a tripod. Many times one uses long lenses for landscape, which too are better to use an a tripod. Also a tripod gives one the most freedom of getting the shots desired! The camera just sits there on the tripod while you can move where ever, to spot more loacations, play with filters, etc., etc.! The real question here is, why would one NOT use a tripod for landscape????
speters wrote:
The most important aspect in landscape shots besides composition is the intended DOF, which sometimes alone, dictates a use of a tripod. Many times one uses long lenses for landscape, which too are better to use an a tripod. Also a tripod gives one the most freedom of getting the shots desired! The camera just sits there on the tripod while you can move where ever, to spot more loacations, play with filters, etc., etc.! The real question here is, why would one NOT use a tripod for landscape????
Because it's difficult to carry it on a tour bus with 45 other people?
Because there are 100 other people vying for the same shot?
Because I don't feel like lugging it around?
Longshadow wrote:
Because it's difficult to carry it on a tour bus with 45 other people?
Because there are 100 other people vying for the same shot?
Because I don't feel like lugging it around?
^^^^^ That makes me appreciate my quiet beaches even more. But yeah, that would force me to stay hand-held for sure.
How are you going to lock up the mirror and take the shot without using a tripod? The answer to the OP's question is yes.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.